“H.L. Mencken said: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” The 2012 Election makes the Sage of Baltimore’s quip ring true. All the bizarre political, sociological and economic theories that we have heard from the left for years are now being put into practice (in fact, President Obama showcased it in his Second Inaugural and State of the Union speeches). The result is a
germinating dystopia sprouting from an executive branch contemptuous of the legislative and judicial branches of national government. Barack Obama is the embodiment of a country in willful decline in both domestic and foreign affairs, and he seems to relish his role. The president is a political Dr. Jack Kevorkian assisting our slow, national suicide.

Maybe some future Gibbon will contemplate the wreckage.” –Bill Croke

Wow! That was so brilliant…and sounded so much like me…I just had to rub that in the trollish faces…!!!!

Hilarious that an unsourced opinion piece, which itself is source-free, gives you such a raging semi, you can barely contain yourself. Your world literally is a flabby circle jerk where you and your fellow shut-ins shit your pants, pass it around, and tell each other how clever you are.

And meanwhile, you continue to lose elections.

“In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”

Oh dear. You freaks are finally going to have to start taking personal financial responsibility for being IRRESPONSIBLE with guns. Like when you shot 5 people on gun appreciation day. Get over yourself. Why should anyone else pay the bill when one of you morons shoots someone?

Wow, UnSanity, you really let that point go whoooooshing over your head…!!!

I know you are too stupid to live, but firearms owners who are…in fact…”IRRESPONSIBLE” with guns are already made to pay for their IRRESPONSIBILITY. (See, I’m making fun of your screaming bullshit…which is true on so many levels. Heh!)

Just like if I am irresponsible with a ladder, you poor, stupid, totalitarian-urging, Collectivist liar.

“I know you are too stupid to live, but firearms owners who are…in fact…”IRRESPONSIBLE” with guns are already made to pay for their IRRESPONSIBILITY. (See, I’m making fun of your screaming bullshit…which is true on so many levels. Heh!)”

Yeah, you’re “making fun” – otherwise known as demonstrating your textbook wingnut obtuseness. How are irresponsible firearm owners made to pay for their irresponsibility? Specifically.

Jimmy owns a gun. Jimmy wants to show his support for people who own guns by going to gun appreciation day, taking his gun with him. Jimmy accidentally shoots Bob, causing personal and economic injuries to Bob. Bob must be taken to the hospital. Expensive surgery must be performed on Bob. Bob must stay in the hospital for a couple of days. Bob misses time from work. Etc.

Yeah, dip shit, and the tort remedy 99 times out of a hundred involves the insurance company defending Jimmy, and settling / paying a verdict – because Jimmy likely doesn’t have several hundred thousand dollars laying around to defend the lawsuit. This is what people who are not brainless twits like you, understand as the “free rider” problem. It’s why we have insurance, dumb fuck.

Before you ever call someone a moron, you should learn what insurance is.

The Fluke analogy isn’t “boggling”. It’s a deluded fallacy propagated by a moron who doesnt know what liability insurance is for. Why? Because the facts do not resemble the fact pattern of a negligent tortfeasor shooting someone. And because there is no reasonable scenario in which one person’s consensual bedroom acts might invoke the need for liability insurance. Again, learning about what liability insurance is for, might help you understand the difference.

And your analogies get stupider by the second. How many cases do you know of where one’s exercise of her 5th amendment caused physical and/or economic injuries to another? To the extent that that a state might have a policy interest in requiring liability insurance.

“Maybe in the fever-dream bubble you live in. Sane people know that there are reasonable restrictions on all civil rights.”

Yes. And I…contra you…am a reasonable person.

But prohibition is not “reasonable”. There are thousands of gun-control laws on the books now. Connecticut has very strict gun-control laws. Does it not? Chicago’s laws are unconstitutional. Are they not?

The lie, you liar, is that you and your Collective are not driving to disarm law-abiding people.

No, dip shit. I assume that he is the negligent tortfeasor. You assume that Jimmy will pay for his negligence out of his pocket. I assume that in the real world, Jimmy probably can’t do that. Which is why he should have liability insurance.

“He is NOT a free-rider. Is he?”

If he doesn’t have insurance or cant pay out of pocket, YES HE IS.

“Actually, we could go further. Say Bob has insurance that pays for part of his loss.”

You really are a moron. So it’s your position that the risk of Jimmy’s negligence should be shifted to Bob’s insurance company – even if he has insurance. In other words, Bob should pay premiums to counter the risk of a negligent gun owner shooting him.

You really dont understand liability insurance.

“The insurance company goes after Jimmy. See, I do this for a living, you poor stupid, ignorant puke.”

Sure you do.

What happens when Jimmy is judgment proof? As almost every uninsured person is. The insurance company doesnt bother. And Bob’s premiums go up.

“You assume that Jimmy will pay for his negligence out of his pocket.”

That is a lie, and you a liar. Quote where I state that.

“In other words, Bob should pay premiums to counter the risk of a negligent gun owner shooting him.”

Bob certainly MAY do that, just as he already does to cushion the loss if Jimmy lets his ladder fall off his truck in traffic, or if Jimmy negligently allows a tree to fall on Bob. Or any number of other potential causes of casualty we could name.

But, see, the gun makes no difference here, does it? It is merely a superstitious thing you fear.

And the whole insurance gambit is just a lying subterfuge you would like to use to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding people (the poorest law-abiding people), you totalitarian puke.

If Jimmy’s ladder falls off his truck in traffic, chances are Jimmy has, wait for it – liability insurance that covers such an occurrence. Why? In part because there is a reasonably foreseeable risk that a negligently stowed ladder could cause injury. This risk is so significant, that if Jimmy (or his employer) has pays premiums for coverage to guard against being made personally liable therefor.

If Jimmy negligently allows a tree (presumably on his property) to fall on Bob, Jimmy has – wait again, liability insurance to pay Bob. If Jimmy cannot afford homeowners insurance, his lender pays for it, and later passes the cost on to Jimmy? Why, because a tree falling from Jimmy’s property onto Bob is precisely the sort of risk homehowers insurance policies anticipate.

If Jimmy is standing next to Bob in public, and Jimmy accidentally shoots Bob, what insurance already covers this tort?

“I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” he said, and urged viewers, in closing, “Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun!”